State v. Laney
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Before Withers, J., at York, Fall Term, 1850. This was an indictment for gaming with a slave, named Jim, belonging to one Simerall. The fact that the defendant played at cards with Jim, was fully proved. There was no proof, however, of any betting, nor did the only witness, who testified, know what game was played.
Read the full summary
Before Withers, J., at York, Fall Term, 1850. This was an indictment for gaming with a slave, named Jim, belonging to one Simerall. The fact that the defendant played at cards with Jim, was fully proved. There was no proof, however, of any betting, nor did the only witness, who testified, know what game was played. The jury found the defendant guilty; and he appealed, and now moved in arrest of judgment, and, failing in that motion, for a new trial, on grounds stated in the decision of this Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Evans, J.
The indictment charges that the defendant “wilfully and unlawfully did game with a certain negro slave,” “ and did then and there bet on the said game.” The Act of 1834 (7 Stat. 469,) is in these words: “If any white person shall game with any free negro or person of color, or slave, or shall bet upon any game played, wherein one of the parties is a free negro, person of color, or slave, or shall be willingly present, aiding and abetting, where any game of chance is played, as aforesaid, such person shall,” &c.
The first motion is in arrest of judgment, because the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. BougherIndiana Supreme Court · 1833
- State v. DoleIndiana Supreme Court · 1833